The suit, which was filed in Thunder Bay last Thursday, names Greenpeace and its campaigners, Richard Brooks and Shane Moffatt, and claims “damages for defamation, malicious falsehood and intentional interference with economic relations” in the amount of $5-million. It also seeks punitive damages of $2-million, plus costs.

Given the extraordinary power of environmental non-governmental organizations, ENGOs, corporations have been reluctant to pursue lawsuits, but Resolute seems to have come to the end of its tether in the face of relentless Greenpeace attacks related to the Canadian Boreal Forest Agreement, the “ceasefire” signed three years ago by members of the Forest Products Association of Canada, FPAC, and nine ENGOs after a series of ENGO do-not-buy campaigns.

Last December, Greenpeace withdrew, claiming Resolute had broken the agreement by logging in off-limits areas. Resolute pointed out that Greenpeace’s allegations were false. Greenpeace nevertheless persisted in its claims until, in February — the filing reveals — Resolute threatened a lawsuit, and pointed to the responsibility of Greenpeace’s directors. The result was an almost unprecedented retraction and apology by Greenpeace, which claimed it “sincerely regrets its error.”

Not.

Greenpeace in fact subsequently redoubled its assault, based on many of the inaccurate accusations for which it had already apologized, plus a raft of new alleged fabrications. Most recently, Messrs Brooks and Moffatt penned “The Unsustainability Report,” which attacked Resolute not merely for its logging practices but also for its record on pay and pensions, and accused it of selling green products that were “tainted” because they contained no recycled fibre (although Resolute acknowledges this fact on its website). The two campaigners turned up at Resolute’s AGM and — “with express malice” — handed out copies of the error-filled report to shareholders.

Resolute last week itself withdrew from the CBFA, citing the “unbalanced” demands of ENGOs. The ENGOs responded by declaring that it was they who were “suspending further work” with Resolute. Now comes Resolute’s lawsuit, which is quietly welcomed by many in the industry. Note “quietly.”

Resolute Forest seems to have come to the end of its tether on Boreal agreement

The lawsuit further cranks up the spotlight on the FPAC, which, while meant to be an advocate for its forestry company members, seems to equate industry interests with constant NGO appeasement. FPAC president David Lindsay last week called for everybody to calm down and return to the table, under which he and his members appeared to be hiding. Mr. Lindsay’s reluctance to attribute “blame” also appears to give a free pass to NGO misrepresentation.

One can understand why corporations would be scared of taking on well-funded NGOs who are expert manipulators of the media. However, the CBFA was always doomed to generate ever-mounting NGO pressure and demands. As Resolute has pointed out, such demands are completely unbalanced between the alleged “three pillars” of sustainability — economic, social and environmental.

Corporations’ more fundamental mistake was ever to sign on to the subversive concept of “sustainable development” in the first place. Its essence is that free markets are unsustainable and thus need ever more rigid control from governments, international organizations and the bogus voice of “civil society,” which is represented by a quite unrepresentative group of radical NGOs.

Neither Greenpeace nor the FPAC responded to calls for comment on the lawsuit. There’s a surprise.

One delicious irony that emerges from Resolute’s statement of claim is that Greenpeace’s February apology may have come from Resolute’s reminder to Greenpeace Canada’s directors of their own liabilities. Usually it is corporate directors who find themselves under the gun from NGOs.

One suspects Greenpeace’s board is unfamiliar with being sued. Its chair is Sue Birge, a former political advisor to the NDP governments of Ontario and British Columbia. Then there’s Glen Brown, an AIDS activist whose hobbies include “confronting neo-liberalism.” Meriko Kubota is “passionate about participatory community development.” Her favourite hobby is “pine needle weaving.” Samantha Preshner specializes in children’s and animal law. Of environmental economist Brigid Rowan, the website reports that “Yoga, qi gong, running and cross-country skiing facilitate Brigid’s transition from economist to writer of creative non-fiction, her right brain’s vocation.” James Sullivan works on certifying products that are socially responsible. He lives “in the U.S., Canada, Mexico and U.K., and enjoys photography.” Finally comes Bev Thorpe, co-director of “Clean Production Action, a non-profit that is moving our global economy to a non-toxic chemicals future.” She also helped design a zero-waste programme for Bhutan, and “can sometimes be found walking the wild shores of Conamara, Ireland.”

No doubt Resolute’s $7-million lawsuit will sharply focus the attention of this conclave of Do Good hobbyists on the veracity and wisdom of the organization whose messaging they are presumably charged with overseeing.

Comments

Postmedia is pleased to bring you a new commenting experience. We are committed to maintaining a lively but civil forum for discussion and encourage all readers to share their views on our articles. We ask you to keep your comments relevant and respectful. Visit our community guidelines for more information.